Re: [dispatch] VIPR - proposed charter version 2

[Jonathan Rosenberg <[e-mail]>]

Cullen,

This looks good. My major comment is that I do think we should include 
VAP. There are applications for VAP which are interdomain. Furthermore, 
even for the intra-domain case, this will be a common protocol for 
communicating between products made from disparate vendors. For example, 
PBX from vendor A talks to the ViPR server from vendor B.

Other minor comments:

Cullen Jennings wrote:

> style addresses yet a large percentage of SIP deployments mostly use
> phone numbers for identifying users. The goal of this working group is
> to enable inter-domains communications over the the internet, using

s/inter-domains/inter-domain

> protocol such as SIP, while still allowing people to use phone numbers

s/protocol/protocols

> to identify the person they wish to communicate with.
> 
> The VIPR WG will address this problem by developing a peer to peer based
> approach to finding domains that claim to be responsible for a given
> phone number and validation protocols to ensure a reasonable likelihood
> that a given domain actually is responsible for the phone number. In
> this context, we use "responsible" to mean an administrative domain
> would would be at least one of the administrative domains that a PSTN

double woulds.

> call to this phone number would be routed to. Once the domain
> responsible for the phone number is found, existing protocols such as
> SIP and XMPP can be used for inter-domain communications.

XMPP? really? does it support phone number addressing?

> 
> Some validation protocols may be based on knowledge gathered around a
> SIP call, for example, the ability to prove a call was received over the

I think you mean PSTN call, and not a SIP call.

> PSTN based on start and stop times. Other validation schemes, such as
> examining fingerprints or watermarking of PSTN media, to show that a
> domain received a particular PSTN phone call may also be considered by
> the working group. The WG will select and standardize at least one
> validation scheme.
> 
> To help mitigate SPAM issues when using SIP between domains, the WG will
> define a mechanisms to enable one domain to check that incoming SIP

s/a mechanisms/a mechanism

> messages from a different domain are coming from a domain that
> successfully validated a phone number. The working group will define new
> SIP headers and option tags to enable this.

The key characteristic is not actually that validation had occurred, but 
rather, that the calling domain had previously placed a PSTN call to the 
number in question.

> 
> The essential characteristic of ViPR is establishing authentication by
> PSTN reachability when it is not possible to use a direct reference to
> ENUM databases or other direct assertions of PSTN number
> ownership. Elements such as public ENUM easily coexist with VIPR but no
> direct interaction with ENUM will be required.

I'd like to get a clear statement in here about the fact that ViPR is 
incrementally deployable using only existing interfaces to the PSTN. No 
change to PSTN capabilities, or new access to its databases, or support 
from PSTN providers, is required in any way.

> 
> The problem statement and some possible starting points for solutions
> are further discussed in the following internet drafts which shall form
> the bases of the WG documents:
> 
> draft-rosenberg-dispatch-vipr-overview
> draft-rosenberg-dispatch-vipr-reload-usage
> draft-rosenberg-dispatch-vipr-pvp
> draft-rosenberg-dispatch-vipr-sip-antispam

Add VAP.

Thanks,
Jonathan R.

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   SkypeID: jdrosen
Chief Technology Strategist                    Mobile: [phone]
Skype                                          SkypeIn: [phone]
[e-mail]                              http://www.skype.com
[e-mail]                            http://www.jdrosen.net